The value of staging ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of posters on this thread are 55+ and haven't bought a house in 10 years. Things are different now, agents charge a 5% commission and many (if not most) of them include staging as part of their services. Some will do "virtual staging" where they photoshop in your pics, but I think that's so lame.

Yes, we know staging is a “thing” as you young whippersnappers say. That’s the point of OP’s thread.

Let me help you. What OP and others are asking is whether staging is worth it. Or whether instead it’s something unnecessary that realtors introduced to stay relevant in an era where you no longer need them to point you to open houses because you can find them online yourself with just a few clicks.

Also whether realtors love staging because they get some kind of payback from referring their own contractors to you. The payback could be “soft” in the form of gratis repairs on their own homes, or could take the form of actual kick-backs as one pp suggested. One naive but smug person claimed it was sad to question this. Another realtor says s/he never takes the hard kickbacks—but who knows about the thousands of other realtors.

Another question is whether “staging” just means getting rid of your furniture and moving in their ivory-colored furniture and wall mirrors in sun frames. Or whether it also includes the painting and repairs—which we all already knew we needed to do, thank you very much.

Feel free to comment on any of this without your insults.

Well stated.

[Anonymous]

I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I pay for and stage everything from the humblest condo to the biggest new house. All of them have sold in less than two weeks, usually a weekend. Because I get properties sold quickly, I get more business. One new listing pays for all of my staging for the year

Most agents are unsuccessful and cheap. They will not pay for staging. Houses do not sell as fast. They do not get business. They remain unsuccessful.

But what's your rate? If it's higher than 5%, then you're just passing on the cost to your clients. Also, are you selling in Bethesda or Olney?

Arlington. 5%. If I represented seller in a purchase 4.5%.

Wrapping up the sale of a listing that sold for 8.9% above best comp from March 2023. No contingencies. Sellers are pleased.

You’ve only sold this one house since March? In a desirable close-in neighborhood?

What about the other sales you made where you foisted staging and your own contractors on the sellers with less success? I suppose it was still a win for you, if not for the sellers.

Despite your lack of reading comprehension skills, let me explain: "the sale of a listing that sold for 8.9% above best comp from March 2023." This means in the particular neighborhood, only one similar house sold since 2023. When establishing prices for a house a real estate agent looks for similar houses that are called "comparable sales" or "comp" as most people who read the real estate forum understand.

I have listed or represented buyers in the sales of 27 properties since January 2023. I have five pending sales that will close by mid-September.

I don't have any listings that haven't sold except for three new construction properties that are barely begun. I am putting one new listing on the market on Saturday and it was staged today. I paid for the staging.

A painter will start painting another listing on August 5.

Happy to keep you up to date on my sales through the year.

I enjoy foisting things on those of a limited sort.

Thanks for the explanation of "comp." Good for you for selling 27 properties. But it's interesting you're only bragging about the one property that sold above market value/comps, and you gave us no details on that one, like whether it's nicer than the comps which were on a major road or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

That's all great for you. But you haven't provided any evidence that you sell houses at higher prices than comparable non-staged houses. "Buyers' reactions" and selling houses quickly isn't much in the way of evidence. Nor have you provided any evidence that this works for staging in general, for houses in desirable vs. non-desirable areas, across the country, et cetera.

Also, you need to stop saying "I pay for staging." You pass the money you spend for staging on to the sellers in the form of you charging a higher commission than you'd otherwise need to charge. So if you're charging 1% more than you need to charge because of the staging, that's $19,000 on a $1.9m house that your clients are paying you to stage their house (besides paying for the repainting themselves). Sounds like a sweet deal for calling your guys to haul off some brass lamps, candlesticks and area rugs and move in a few pieces off-white furniture. If things work out for the sellers price-wise, and they get a higher-than-market price, then they might in turn be able to pass that $19k on to the buyers--but we have zero evidence that staging leads to a higher-than-market price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we sold our last house for $715K, the realtor paid for staging (2013). It was my understanding that a certain price point the realtors cover it. I'm not sure what price point that is.

You paid for it through your realtor's fee, which you could possibly have negotiated to be lower.

FWIW - we met with 3 realtors and considered the fees for all of them when deciding which one to pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we sold our last house for $715K, the realtor paid for staging (2013). It was my understanding that a certain price point the realtors cover it. I'm not sure what price point that is.

You paid for it through your realtor's fee, which you could possibly have negotiated to be lower.

FWIW - we met with 3 realtors and considered the fees for all of them when deciding which one to pick.

Did all three offer to stage? If one or two weren't going to stage, did they have lower fees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Realtors piling onto the thread to share their experiences of the wonders of staging in 3…2…1….

And yet, they are right....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our house was painted (we paid for this) where it hadn’t been painted in a while, we removed all extra furniture, pulled out the ugly ikea furniture to put in a generic sofa, pillows, took down family pictures and put up generic canvas art, removed tchotchkes except for a smattering, and put white fluffy towels where our beige ones had been. We had very nice pictures done including dusk shots of the beautiful outside space that’s really our biggest selling factor (we are in a meh neighborhood). It was very light staging, our realtor did it as part of her fee (FWIW our house was fairly nicely updated in most rooms for the neighborhood), and it sold over asking in the first 48 hours. It was purchased by someone looking online only. So I would say in our case it was worth it. Our house looked amazing in the pictures. It looked nice in person, too. Other homes in our neighborhood have been sitting longer.

It sounds like you did 90% of the work decluttering, getting it painted, and getting fluffy new towels and sofa pillows. Moreover, it's not really "staging" if you don't put all/most of your furniture in storage and bring in the realtor's (or their contractor's) furniture. Most of this--taking down family photos, new towels, painting--is stuff sellers like our parents have been doing forever. Apart from arranging the photos, what exactly did the realtor do?

The realtor gave us the list of items to remove/fix/repair/paint, organized their mover to come and pick up the extra furniture to storage/move in their furniture, picked paint colors, arranged/scheduled the painters, picked the carpet/kitchen flooring (forgot we did this!), arranged the installation of flooring, and provided all of the accessories, art, pillows, towels, area rugs, lamps, and furniture. They also came and arranged those things before pictures were taken. My realtor also hosted two open houses personally.

OK. But most of this isn't "staging," it's simply fixing up your house for sale. All of us do it anyway. It's what our parents did when they sold their houses--they painted, they decluttered, they rented a storage unit for all the stuff. You make the house look as nice as possible--this is different from staging.

I can see hiring the realtor to do these fixing-up and decluttering tasks because it takes a lot of the logistics off of you. But know that you're paying more if you go through a middleman (the realtor) and use their contractors. For example, if the realtor recommends paint colors, that's great, but your own painter will probably do it more cheaply than paying a middleman (your realtor) to call up their own painters (who won't give you the long-term customer discount we always get from the painters we always use). When we sold our starter house, we rented a storage unit and DH and his friends moved our extra furniture in temporarily. Installing new kitchen flooring sounds extra and does requires professionals, but again you don't need to pay a middleman (your realtor) to text their flooring contractor.

Actual "staging" is the part where they move out your furniture and put in beige, white and grey furniture. It sounds like they gave you a few pieces, like a sofa and some throw pillows?

Impressed that your realtor hosted two open houses personally, though. Ours hosted one (makes me wonder about how your realtor priced your house, but that's a different topic), but it sounds like lots of realtors just send a trainee to sit in your house during the open house.

That's not true about the contractors at all. My contractor does an amazing job and gives my clients a very reasonable rate bc I give him lots of business. He is competent and reliable so I always know that the work will be completed in time for professional photographers to come in. And, most of the time, unless your realtor is doing huge business, he/she will be doing the open. If they are not, you probably picked the wrong agent.

So now "staging" also means bringing in the realtor's contractors to paint or whatever fixes you're recommending be done? Do you know how shady this sounds? Also, some of us have long-term relationships with painters and handymen who take care of us for a good price and quickly.

Trying to help your client is shady huh? Did you forget to take your meds today? If you have a relationship with a contractor, great. Use him. Many people dont.

Yes, finding a bunch of things "wrong" with somebody's house and referring them to your own contractor for fixing is shady. Take your own meds (or find an insult that's not from 2010).

Most home owners have contractors. But if they don't, better would be to provide a list of contractors they could choose from.

DP.

I don't think "most" homeowners have their own contractors. We do; however, I believe we're in the minority judging from the number of calls I get from friends and acquaintances wanting to know whom to call. There is no reason for a realtor to provide a range of contractors. If you want to use your own, then you're free to do so.

Your posts on this make you sound unknolwedgeable and, frankly, pretty paranoid. If you won't trust your realtor on contractors, then why on earth are you trusting them with one of the largest transactions you'll ever make? You are not making any sense.

You can call me names like paranoid and unknowledgeable, but I actually have a finance degree. This kind of incestuous self-dealing is ripe for kickbacks and so on, and it's something people are well advised to stay far, far away from.

Yes, I trust my realtor to do the contract. But somebody who wants to sell me services from their stager and contractors, not so much.

LOL. A "finance degree." Thanks for the full-on belly laugh!

Have you ever heard the words "conflict of interest" or "self-dealing"? Someone should shut that sh!t down.

+1 Realtors receive kickbacks for everyone they refer you to. Most people don't understand this.

+1. There’s a reason law requires you choose your own appraiser. But “you should hire my painter Joe and my handyman Jeff to fix up your house so I get a higher commission both in terms of the higher rate I’ll charge you for this ‘advice’ and a possibly-but-not-guaranteed higher selling price”—hard pass.

Our parents did this on their own. We can too.

You keep insisting that realtors are charging higher rates if they include staging and referrals but offer ZERO evidence. I've asked for this multiple times and no one has had this experience. I was charged 5% and my agent paid for staging, landscaping, and house cleaning. She referred us to her preferred lender, handyman, and painter. We got multiple estimates for everything we wanted to do around the house and the painter she referred us to was the cheapest. We went with a different lender and handyman (and ended up doing some of that on our own). I suspect the vast majority of people on this board have had similar experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently went to a showing for a house where they did zero staging and no paint touch ups nothing.. Made us think if the owners were unable to afford basic touch ups and some base level staging that they might have not taken care of/maintained less visible things in the home as well that would cost us in the long run like chimney, plumbing, roofing, electrical etc.

Maybe... although I'm thinking of my parents house now- they are super into all the electrical work, plumbing, HVAC, exterior paint, etc, but they haven't updated the inside since 1970.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

That's all great for you. But you haven't provided any evidence that you sell houses at higher prices than comparable non-staged houses. "Buyers' reactions" and selling houses quickly isn't much in the way of evidence. Nor have you provided any evidence that this works for staging in general, for houses in desirable vs. non-desirable areas, across the country, et cetera.

Also, you need to stop saying "I pay for staging." You pass the money you spend for staging on to the sellers in the form of you charging a higher commission than you'd otherwise need to charge. So if you're charging 1% more than you need to charge because of the staging, that's $19,000 on a $1.9m house that your clients are paying you to stage their house (besides paying for the repainting themselves). Sounds like a sweet deal for calling your guys to haul off some brass lamps, candlesticks and area rugs and move in a few pieces off-white furniture. If things work out for the sellers price-wise, and they get a higher-than-market price, then they might in turn be able to pass that $19k on to the buyers--but we have zero evidence that staging leads to a higher-than-market price.

Lady, I don't know which realtor done you wrong, but you really need to get rid of the chip on your shoulder. You are borderline INSANE. The vast majority of real estate agents right now are charging 5% whether they include stuff or not. We're not all cheapskates like you. I interviewed several agents, they all were 5%. I did not call the guy who charges $500 for an MLS listing only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently went to a showing for a house where they did zero staging and no paint touch ups nothing.. Made us think if the owners were unable to afford basic touch ups and some base level staging that they might have not taken care of/maintained less visible things in the home as well that would cost us in the long run like chimney, plumbing, roofing, electrical etc.

Well that's just a dumb assumption to make, especially in this market when that stuff isn't necessary to sell a house. If it's dated, older owners or their heirs know that anyone buying it is going to come in and make their own changes, so it's not worth it to spend several thousand on a fresh coat of paint, when you could just lower the sales price by that much. I'd rather pay $700K for a house and paint it myself, buy new appliances, new flooring, etc., than pay $800 for what essentially amounts to a cheap flip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

That's all great for you. But you haven't provided any evidence that you sell houses at higher prices than comparable non-staged houses. "Buyers' reactions" and selling houses quickly isn't much in the way of evidence. Nor have you provided any evidence that this works for staging in general, for houses in desirable vs. non-desirable areas, across the country, et cetera.

Also, you need to stop saying "I pay for staging." You pass the money you spend for staging on to the sellers in the form of you charging a higher commission than you'd otherwise need to charge. So if you're charging 1% more than you need to charge because of the staging, that's $19,000 on a $1.9m house that your clients are paying you to stage their house (besides paying for the repainting themselves). Sounds like a sweet deal for calling your guys to haul off some brass lamps, candlesticks and area rugs and move in a few pieces off-white furniture. If things work out for the sellers price-wise, and they get a higher-than-market price, then they might in turn be able to pass that $19k on to the buyers--but we have zero evidence that staging leads to a higher-than-market price.

Lady, I don't know which realtor done you wrong, but you really need to get rid of the chip on your shoulder. You are borderline INSANE. The vast majority of real estate agents right now are charging 5% whether they include stuff or not. We're not all cheapskates like you. I interviewed several agents, they all were 5%. I did not call the guy who charges $500 for an MLS listing only.

Hey buddy, take an Econ 101 class. Or even remember your math from grade school.

If staging is "included" in the 5%, that means they could lower their rate--to 4.5%? to 4%?--if they hadn't persuaded you that you totally needed their beige furniture.

That's right, you're paying for the staging, not the realtor. This is Econ 101--costs always get passed on to the consumer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently went to a showing for a house where they did zero staging and no paint touch ups nothing.. Made us think if the owners were unable to afford basic touch ups and some base level staging that they might have not taken care of/maintained less visible things in the home as well that would cost us in the long run like chimney, plumbing, roofing, electrical etc.

Well that's just a dumb assumption to make, especially in this market when that stuff isn't necessary to sell a house. If it's dated, older owners or their heirs know that anyone buying it is going to come in and make their own changes, so it's not worth it to spend several thousand on a fresh coat of paint, when you could just lower the sales price by that much. I'd rather pay $700K for a house and paint it myself, buy new appliances, new flooring, etc., than pay $800 for what essentially amounts to a cheap flip.

+1.

Also, can we stop pretending new paint + decluttering == staging?

The realtor has nothing to do with the painting and decluttering, except for maybe taking five minutes to recommend these and their favorite shade of whisper veil ivory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

That's all great for you. But you haven't provided any evidence that you sell houses at higher prices than comparable non-staged houses. "Buyers' reactions" and selling houses quickly isn't much in the way of evidence. Nor have you provided any evidence that this works for staging in general, for houses in desirable vs. non-desirable areas, across the country, et cetera.

Also, you need to stop saying "I pay for staging." You pass the money you spend for staging on to the sellers in the form of you charging a higher commission than you'd otherwise need to charge. So if you're charging 1% more than you need to charge because of the staging, that's $19,000 on a $1.9m house that your clients are paying you to stage their house (besides paying for the repainting themselves). Sounds like a sweet deal for calling your guys to haul off some brass lamps, candlesticks and area rugs and move in a few pieces off-white furniture. If things work out for the sellers price-wise, and they get a higher-than-market price, then they might in turn be able to pass that $19k on to the buyers--but we have zero evidence that staging leads to a higher-than-market price.

Lady, I don't know which realtor done you wrong, but you really need to get rid of the chip on your shoulder. You are borderline INSANE. The vast majority of real estate agents right now are charging 5% whether they include stuff or not. We're not all cheapskates like you. I interviewed several agents, they all were 5%. I did not call the guy who charges $500 for an MLS listing only.

Hey buddy, take an Econ 101 class. Or even remember your math from grade school.

If staging is "included" in the 5%, that means they could lower their rate--to 4.5%? to 4%?--if they hadn't persuaded you that you totally needed their beige furniture.

That's right, you're paying for the staging, not the realtor. This is Econ 101--costs always get passed on to the consumer.

bored now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am listing a home for $1.9M in a clise in area. Sellers did a great expansion and the house is beautifully furnished and tastefully decorated. The sellers have two daughters in their 30s. The first thing the seller said was I don’t want my house to look like an old lady house. My daughters said to have it staged.

My stager advised to remove many area rugs and replace the brass lamps, candlesticks and similar. She will move furniture to storage area and redesign and redecorate the house with a younger look.

I also pay for staging because I see buyers reactions to staged houses. People hire me because I sell houses quickly and at good prices. I stage houses whether occupied, as described above, or vacant. That is my business model. It works. Argue on.

That's all great for you. But you haven't provided any evidence that you sell houses at higher prices than comparable non-staged houses. "Buyers' reactions" and selling houses quickly isn't much in the way of evidence. Nor have you provided any evidence that this works for staging in general, for houses in desirable vs. non-desirable areas, across the country, et cetera.

Also, you need to stop saying "I pay for staging." You pass the money you spend for staging on to the sellers in the form of you charging a higher commission than you'd otherwise need to charge. So if you're charging 1% more than you need to charge because of the staging, that's $19,000 on a $1.9m house that your clients are paying you to stage their house (besides paying for the repainting themselves). Sounds like a sweet deal for calling your guys to haul off some brass lamps, candlesticks and area rugs and move in a few pieces off-white furniture. If things work out for the sellers price-wise, and they get a higher-than-market price, then they might in turn be able to pass that $19k on to the buyers--but we have zero evidence that staging leads to a higher-than-market price.

Lady, I don't know which realtor done you wrong, but you really need to get rid of the chip on your shoulder. You are borderline INSANE. The vast majority of real estate agents right now are charging 5% whether they include stuff or not. We're not all cheapskates like you. I interviewed several agents, they all were 5%. I did not call the guy who charges $500 for an MLS listing only.

Hey buddy, take an Econ 101 class. Or even remember your math from grade school.

If staging is "included" in the 5%, that means they could lower their rate--to 4.5%? to 4%?--if they hadn't persuaded you that you totally needed their beige furniture.

That's right, you're paying for the staging, not the realtor. This is Econ 101--costs always get passed on to the consumer.

bored now

Math is hard, amIright?